A federal jury has ordered American Airlines to pay $400,000 to a computer consultant who was pulled from a flight at Logan International Airport because of security concerns, then denied reboarding even after he had been cleared by State Police. "I felt like I was being treated like a terrorist and there was no way I could prove I didn't do anything or say anything at all," said John Cerqueira , 39, who grew up in Fall River and now lives in Miami. "I'm grateful to the jury for sending the message to American Airlines that just the use of the word security isn't an excuse for unlawful behavior."

No they didn't. Read Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. It is the Captain's decision as to who flys and who doesn't. If the Captain thinks you are a threat to the aircraft and or the passengers it is his decision to let you fly or remove you from the flight.

This jury and this ridiculous judgment they awarded is yet another glaring example of what is wrong with our judicial system. A LOT of people are probably going to die because of this jury and their stupidity.....hopefully the airline will win on appeal.

Ok, so I will agree he was 'undually' detained but I will point out that in order to make that determination, one must first be detained. I cannot see where 400 grand justifies a couple hour detainment.

Are you saying that all decisions to detain must have evidence of guilt prior to detainment? If so, I have to say that seems a bit unreasonable, especially in light of the fact airplanes have been know to fly into buildings. When there is a question, it should be answered and the way to do that is remove a person from a flight and see that it gets answered.

Now as for not allowing him travel. I have to say he was not denied travel, he was denied access to those particular airplines. He could have taken a cab to a bus station. He could have rented a car, he could have chosen another airline. The point being that he had other choices available to him. Are you taking the position that the airlines are not private industry? That they have no say who may fly on their planes and who may not?

This nation has lost sight of private industry and what it used to mean to have a private business. If a guy comes into my store and wants to purchase an item and I don't like the way things feel, I should have the right, as the owner, to deny that sale. That property is mine to sell and I should be able to sell it, or not sell it, based my own personal decision. No one should be able to force me to sell or not to sell. It is not their choice, it is mine.

In the case of an airline, we are talking about a service. A service is the same as a good in my store example. If you take the position you do as to this lawsuit then you have to also take the position that the government should have to take 100% control of security and all liability for it.

They must make every decision regarding who flys and who doesn't. They must also decide where passengers can wait an where those there to greet them can wait. They must decide what foods can be sold and what stores can exist in the terminal. They must decide what goods can be sold in those stores and, as I stated, who those goods must be sold to. Where does that stop?

Look, either you back private business or you don't You cannot have it both ways. You cannot expect private dollars to be invested in a business when those investors have no control over how the business is run. So which is it? If you believe in private ownership of business then you must accept that some decisions made by some owners will be ones that you disagree with, even some will you find abhorant. The balance is found in the fact that you could open a business of your own and make the decision you find acceptable.

If you take the position that business owners cannot make their own decisions, futher that they shall be punished for any made that some find reprehensible, then you have to admit that you oppose private ownership and operation of business. I am not saying you have to like or agree with the choice the airline made. I am Just sayin that you have to respect the fact that it is their choice to make and not your's (the your's there being meant in the plural sense).

Many people demand their own choice while at the same time have no problem denying others the very same thing they demand for themselves. That makes me sad, it also makes me scared. Private land ownership and private business ownership combined with the freedom to make individual choices concerning them is what made this nation strong. Laws, lawsuits and judgments like this example is weakening the very thing that made this country what it is today. It is shame people refuse to see that.

53
posted on 01/16/2007 7:55:00 AM PST
by Just sayin
(Is is what it is, for if it was anything else, it would be isn't.)

I feel this way about flying. If I am going to fly I am going to be searched and maybe profiled. Don't we all want to fly safely? I think the airlines went a bit overboard. There must be more to this story . Maybe he was nasty to them ...I don't know... If the airline felt they didn't want him on one of their planes I think they ought to have that right....He sued and got a good amount, I wouldn't have awarded him that much.... If we want to be safe while flying then we are going to have to deal with this kind of stuff. Airlines should make it clear if they feel you are a threat then they have the right to deny you a flight.

56
posted on 01/16/2007 7:57:04 AM PST
by pandoraou812
( zero tolerance to the will of Allah and dilligaf?)

So you think it is OK to get booted from a flight because of who sits next to you?

Do you hold the decision as to who rides in your car or do I hold that decision to be made for you? It is your car right? It is their airplane just as it is your car. When you are prepared to give up the right to make your own decisions concerning your own property, you let me know ok?

58
posted on 01/16/2007 7:59:21 AM PST
by Just sayin
(Is is what it is, for if it was anything else, it would be isn't.)

"The complaint included an e-mail message, which Cerqueira said is from an airline official, stating, "Our investigation has revealed that our personnel perceived certain aspects of your behavior, which could have made other customers uncomfortable on board the aircraft."

===

Maybe he acted suspicious deliberately, precisely to get kicked off so he can sue.

Radio, I understand why you would feel they were wron and i respect your right to feel that way. But why isit that you think it is right and proper to punish business owners becasue they make a decision you disagree with.

Are you saying that everytime someone disagrees with a decision made by a business owner they should be able to sue for damages? It apears that you are sayin that so I thought I would ask you in a straight forward manner.

60
posted on 01/16/2007 8:02:32 AM PST
by Just sayin
(Is is what it is, for if it was anything else, it would be isn't.)

I see this as a first amendment freedom of association issue. An airline ticket is a private contract between the airline and the individual. The airline agrees to provide a service (the flight) to an individual, subject to government regulations and the disclaimers of the airline. Just as other retailers reserve the right to refuse service, the airline should have the same right.

In the worst case, damages should be limited to 3 times actual damages (the price of the ticket). This is the same 3 times limit that applies when someone willfully defrauds another.

Do you hold the decision as to who rides in your car or do I hold that decision to be made for you? It is your car right? It is their airplane just as it is your car. When you are prepared to give up the right to make your own decisions concerning your own property, you let me know ok?

While I certainly agree with you concerning private property, you are probably well aware that you as a business owner can not deny someone service because of their race. An airline can not deny service because of people's race. This guy was detained simply because of his race(and because he looked like the Israelis acting suspicious). The cops that interviewed him agreed there.

Say you own a store and accuse someone of shoplifting. You call the cops and they determine it was a misunderstanding and the person did not shoplift. You as the owner can not go ahead and have the cops issue a tresspass warrant against the person because you still "disagree". I don't really see any difference here with this passenger(although I agree $400K is excessive, and I think the jury did it to send a point).

Also, the entire argument is really moot due to the fact that airlines simply can not be considered private property due to Federal control.

Do you hold the decision as to who rides in your car or do I hold that decision to be made for you? It is your car right? It is their airplane just as it is your car. When you are prepared to give up the right to make your own decisions concerning your own property, you let me know ok?

It should be entirely up to a business who it will serve? Yes or no?

64
posted on 01/16/2007 8:12:40 AM PST
by doc30
(Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)

It's liberals like this who sue for trivial reasons that cost us all more money through litigation. Profiling is good. Refund the price of his ticket or ask him to check his carry-ons so that there would be no chance of concealing a weapon. It is the captain's decision. To fee outrage is just to be like the enemy. If his name was on a suspicious persons list, or he was acting suspicious then confront him. But an award of $400K will just make the price of flying higher to everyone. The USA is at war and this carries with it different methods that must be imposed to keep us secure.

Paying the race card huh? Not surprising, it happens often. It is my position that if a black man doesn't want to do business with a white man he should have that choice, and all the responsibility that comes along with that action.

Rather than laws mandating such things, allow that personal responsibility to handle it. When a business gets a reputation for being racist in nature, how long is it going to last in today's world? Let the free market work, it does work when it is allowed to do so.

I don't care what reason a business ownr has, it is his choice, not mine.

Cannot be considered private property huh? Imagine that. Stalin would be proud to the point of tears. Tell me then, with all the regulation in all business, just take the card you played to start this post, NO BUSINESS can be 'considered' pivate then huh?

70
posted on 01/16/2007 8:47:52 AM PST
by Just sayin
(Is is what it is, for if it was anything else, it would be isn't.)

Again, I do not disagree with you on the concept of private property or freedom of association. I'm against all laws that infringe upon the rights associated with either. I'm simply stating that our opinions do not matter because the law does not reflect our opinion. As a matter of law, one can not discriminate against another based upon race. Not my opinion nor my stance. It what the law says. That's what essentially occurred here. A problem arose, it was cleared up and the business(in this case, an airline) still discriminated against the person, who had been cleared of having done nothing wrong, by refusing him service anyway. $400K is certainly ridiculous, however.

A personal auto is not the same as a commercial airliner. An airline is a public accomodation, just like a restaurant or a hotel. You can't deny one person business but accept it from another on arbitrary or personal grounds. When you open a business, that 'right to make your own decisions concerning your own property' is restricted. Period.

Based on your arguement, a business can deny service to anyone as a matter of personal choice. So you have no problem with blacks having to sit at the back of the bus or being denied service because a private restaurant only wants to serve white customers. Just let the free market create a business that caters to blacks, or to everybody. Thank you for proving you support racism, discrimination based on disablity or even very basic health and safety standards. You disgust me and I will justly ignore you.

73
posted on 01/16/2007 8:57:45 AM PST
by doc30
(Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)

The whole point of owning a business, of putting your own money on the line, is to be able to make those exact decisions. Arbitrary and personal grounds is the exact reason one seeks to own their own business instead of working for someone else. Why is it you seek to remove choice? Simply becasue you don't like the choice made? What gives you that right?

If something is funded by taxpayer dollars, taxpayer rules shall apply, see this >>>> they are the owners. That is where the line rests. Private dollars means private decisions and public dollars means public decisions. You have removed that line entirely. Please explain what gives youthe right to do so.

Your claim that I support racism is a huge dodge and serious spin. I said quite clearly that if a person operates a business that makes racist choices they hold the personal responsiblity for doing so. Please do explain how me saying that equates to me supporting racist decisions. This I gotta hear.

Let me explain something to you. A person can support another's right to make a decision while opposing 100% the actual choice that person makes. Do you understand the difference? Or do you simply seek to play the race card and throw out labels in order to mask the fact that you do not comprehend something this simple?

I don't like red, therfor you should not be able to buy a red car. I think that this grocery store should not be selling hamhocks, so therfor they cannot do so. I think that grocery store should be selling Halal meat therfor they must do so. See the problem with your position yet? Or do you still support your contention that private business does not have the right to make arbitrary and personal decisions?

When you seek to impose your choice on everyone else, you are indeed endangering your own choice. For when you back such imposition, it is only a matter of time before someone else's decision is imposed on you.

I am not saying you have to like or agree with the choice made. I am not saying that you cannot voice your position concerning that choice made. I am Just sayin that you have to accept the fact that it isn't your choice to make, it is theirs to make. If you make the choice not to accept that, then you must admit you live in denial of a stark reality.....(that being that it is not your choice to make)or you don't really believe in free choice at all. So which is it?

77
posted on 01/16/2007 9:14:21 AM PST
by Just sayin
(Is is what it is, for if it was anything else, it would be isn't.)

This was the topic for discussion on our Boston radio station this morning. Evidently, he arrived at the airport early and asked to have his seat changed. He wanted an exit row for more legroom. He boarded the aircraft and went to the lav, sat down and took out his laptop. The 2 Israelis focused attention on themselves when they told the pilot while boarding that it was going to be a great flight and wishing all the passengers a Happy New Year. When the authorities approached the row, they were all sitting in ,Cerqueira had fallen asleep. Frankly, it doesn't sound like he did anything wrong.

Unless he was traveling with fellow employees or customers, I don't think his reputation was done much harm. He'll likely never see his fellow passengers again. On the flip side TSA is an unnecessary PC joke. There will never be another successful hijacking of an American airline again.

LOL. OK, the Captain screwed up. Show me anywhere in the article where it says the guy was remotely considered a threat except for the fact that the AIRLINE assigned him a seat next to 2 suspicious looking guys who happened to be Israeli.

You know, sometimes there really is a potential threat like those Imams on US Air but here there's nothing but a bunch of paranoiacs (yourself included). The Airline/Captain got what they deserved, a slap on the wrist for a multi billion dollar corporation.

89
posted on 01/16/2007 3:53:48 PM PST
by saganite
(Billions and billions and billions-------and that's just the NASA budget!)

Are you saying that everytime someone disagrees with a decision made by a business owner they should be able to sue for damages? It apears that you are sayin that so I thought I would ask you in a straight forward manner

Of course not.

However, this guy was detained by police and then refused a seat on a plane.

Here is an example for you:

You are trying to rent a car in a city where you don't live. The rental agency calls the cops and has you pulled out of the car and arrested (after they gave it to you in the first place) because you have red hair. Then refuses to let you have the car back after being cleared by the police even though you paid for the vehicle in advance.

Ridiculous judgments like this will affect your ticket price on any airline. The precedent set by the judgment will make it more attractive for lawyers and/or their clients to pass up smaller out of court settlements and go for full court action against any airline.

Ridiculous judgments like this will affect your ticket price on any airline. The precedent set by the judgment will make it more attractive for lawyers and/or their clients to pass up smaller out of court settlements and go for full court action against any airline.

Thanks for calling me a racist. Interesting that suspecting all white people are racist isn't a racial prejudice. Didn't know there were serious security concerns at the Walgreens in your picture.

What were the serious security concerns of American Airlines after the police completely cleared him? The reason AA still didn't let him on the plane was because it would make the other passengers feel uncomfortable. That is exactly the parallel with the Woolworth's photo: these guys sat down at the "whites only" lunch counter and were refused service because it would make the white customers uncomfortable. You asked "what happened to the right to refuse service." These guys, along with Rosa Parks and a lot of other brave black and white Americans, helped bring about a little thing called the Civil Rights Act, which ensures that no one can be refused service at a public accommodation on account of race or national origin. That's what AA was doing, and a jury rightly found it guilty.

>What were the serious security concerns of American Airlines after the police completely cleared him?<

I have to trust that there was some reason authorities had.

>The reason AA still didn't let him on the plane was because it would make the other passengers feel uncomfortable.<

So do you agree with the "flying Imams"? Those six guys who got on the plane last Nov and began praising Osama bin Ladin openly, asked for seat belt extensions when they didn't need them and then changed to seats near the emergency exits? I mean, these Imams only crime was making people uncomfortable too. Should they have been allowed to stay on the plane?

>"That is exactly the parallel with the Woolworth's photo: these guys sat down at the "whites only" lunch counter and were refused service because it would make the white customers uncomfortable. You asked "what happened to the right to refuse service." These guys, along with Rosa Parks and a lot of other brave black and white Americans, helped bring about a little thing called the Civil Rights Act, which ensures that no one can be refused service at a public accommodation on account of race or national origin. That's what AA was doing, and a jury rightly found it guilty."<

Yeah that's it, it's all a racial thing. In the year 2007 we have no reason to be concerned about the people who come in to this country, who gets on planes, etc. We're just a racist nation filled with unaccepting white people who hate everyone who looks and thinks different from them.

And that itself isn't a racial slur, because you can't prejudge white people right? We know that racism is endemic only to those with pale skin.

Maybe I should put on some bed sheets and go to a civil rights rally. After all, I never said I was a member of the KKK.

I take issue with "because you have red hair". If a red haired man was in the news for stealing rental cars they would be right to take a second look. The red hair is not why they took him out, the fact a red haired man was being sought is.

Trying to make it about only the red hair turns it into a red herring (sorry but the pun fit) or a straw man because there is more to it. If one is not considering all relevant factors, one is not keeping it real. Indeed, one is being fake. It is like saying, a 6 foot tall white man just robbed a C-store but the cops could not stop and talk to white men in the area that are 6 foot tall. It just dosn/t make sense.

Security, police, whatever you want to call them, have a job to do and the stakes are high, very high in the case of airplanes. ( sorry, the puns are just rolling off my fingers today) Would I be happy that I got a second look and that my schedule was impaired?

No, I wouldn't be happy about it. But I would understand that they are just trying to do their jobs. It is not like they beat the crap out me. It is not even as if they held me for days and weeks or months or years.

When checked in this manner I would seek to help them out with information they request rather than become obtuse about it and cause further needless problems. Helping them with their job will see to it that I am on my way sooner and it will also insure they can get on to their search without undue time spent on me.

I most certainly would not sue over this. Now, if they beat the crap out of me, and I didn't start it, I would agree with your position, I would own them.

99
posted on 01/17/2007 8:54:47 AM PST
by Just sayin
(Is is what it is, for if it was anything else, it would be isn't.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.